101. Comment #212138 by Rational_G on July 16, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Oh boy!

Dawkins and Weinberg together. A real treat to listen in on their conversation.

Great stuff.

Other Comments by Rational_G

102. Comment #212142 by Drool on July 16, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Kristopher, Bullshit.

Other Comments by Drool

103. Comment #212153 by Kristopher on July 16, 2008 at 5:42 pm

If I am being arrogant; I apologies. Sometimes I get a little nervous. The only way to test the many worlds approach; is through quantum computation. The problem with quantum computation is-one of the major problems-is decoherence. This I believe was the agorithm put forth by Doctor David Deutsch. If a quantum computer was built-which is highly unlikley; almost impossable-it would need about 1 billion qubits-I believe. So far one company claims to of build one with 16 quibits and doesn't harness the EPR effect; so one can conclude, that it's not a quantum compuer at all. Sorry about the spelling. I tell you this because I am afraid for you-I know what you know not. I repent for my arrogance... there was no excuse for it.

Other Comments by Kristopher

104. Comment #212158 by Monsterbeach on July 16, 2008 at 5:59 pm

quantum! (I say no more)

Back to OP(Video): Pure delight.

Other Comments by Monsterbeach

105. Comment #212162 by Rawhard Dickins on July 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Kristopher

The dizzying heights of the evolutionary tree can be a confusing and frightening place.

Calling upon what little was known 2000 years ago won't help you work it out!

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

106. Comment #212164 by Corky on July 16, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Kristopher, it's true that not many mighty and not many wise are "called" but many, many weak and foolish are called to confound the mighty.

Paul told you that just so you can have feelings of being "special". The only way you can confound the mighty is to talk so foolish that the mighty are confounded at your ignorance.

You can probably read the words of the bible writers but you don't grasp that it is psychological BS that they are feeding you.

Paul also told his followers to stay single (if they could) and the married to act as if they were single (in other words, don't start any families) because "the time is short".

If time was short 2,000 years ago, what time is it now?

Other Comments by Corky

107. Comment #212170 by Radesq on July 16, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Kristopher@103: Noah's Apocalypse Ready Komputer also known as the A.R.K. was somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 qubits. Surely there has been some progress since then given Moore's law.

Other Comments by Radesq

108. Comment #212171 by Bonzai on July 16, 2008 at 6:33 pm

When I saw the picture it struke me that they are all stuffy looking straight white males in suits who are middle aged or older. I kind of hope "the voice of science" would be more diverse, youthful and universal.

Other Comments by Bonzai

109. Comment #212172 by Al420 on July 16, 2008 at 6:34 pm

I can't wait to smoke a joint and watch this.

Other Comments by Al420

110. Comment #212180 by Styrer- on July 16, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Comment #212113 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Hey Richard, how does it feel to have an in-depth conversation with someone who's quite possibly the greatest mind on the planet?

What a magnificent interview. What a privilege to see on this site - and free of charge! - two scientific heavyweights granting their thoughts an audience!

And what a shame that some gobshites, such as Yadsmood, do not realise quite how this interview really worked.

A huge kick in the scrotum has been delivered here to those - and at least one on these boards, I recall, in earlier months - who said that Richard needs to brush up on his cosmology and physics in order to hold his own against theists who understand these topics.

Not only did Richard drive this discussion forward through his knowledge of Weinberg's probable take on things, but he also added a superb layer of cynicism to the chat of a great man who is now seemingly rather sad and dejected by dint of his whole science experience.

Weinberg puzzled me in this interview, and not only because of his complicated scientific proposals. I disagree with Weinberg on two counts - his notion of the universe, with us all in it, as tragic; and his insistence that religion is an ennabler - which, surprisingly, Richard seemed to endorse - of the best parts of us, as artists, as poets etc. This latter suggestion rings so oddly with me that I am not sure if my ears have quite recovered to hear my own voice shouting: 'BOLLOCKS! The transcendental has no need of sky-fuckers, but has need only of US - as the numinous's progenitor - to coax it to full and proper expression.'

So my puzzlement lies in squaring Weinberg's words here with the apparent circle of his expression of atheism.

Care to help me, anyone?

One of the best interviews, in any case, I've yet seen on this site.

Thanks to all involved, and especially to Richard.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

111. Comment #212181 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 7:11 pm

And what a shame that some gobshites, such as Yadsmood, do not realise quite how this interview really worked.

What the fuck are you talking about? Weinberg is considered by many physicists to be the pre-eminent theoretical physicist alive. He is quite possibly the greatest mind on the planet. I'm sure Richard Dawkins agrees with me

How does saying this make me a "gobshite"?

Other Comments by Yadsmood

112. Comment #212183 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Bonzai wrote:

When I saw the picture it struke me that they are all stuffy looking straight white males in suits who are middle aged or older. I kind of hope "the voice of science" would be more diverse, youthful and universal.

Well, perhaps -- there were comments complaining about this earlier in the thread. On the other hand, as was also mentioned:

utsusemia wrote:

Are the only "leading" scientists whose opinions are worth consulting white males? I mean, surely women and POC scientists have a hard enough time in the field without supposedly enlightened people like Richard Dawkins perpetuating their marginalization?

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Do you seriously suppose we sat down and made a list of scientists we wanted to include, and then travelled to see each of them in turn? Isn't it obvious that, on my various lecturing tours, we opportunistically approached people who happened to be there, willing and available?

While I myself bristle at the idea that I wouldn't be able to "understand" or "get into" science (for example) simply because so many scientists happen to be males, I can understand that it can be a bit off-putting to have few people who "look like" you in the field. I guess the only way out is to continue to encourage women and "POC" to pursue careers and interest in science -- something that won't happen if it is claimed, per some misguided "feminist" scholars, that science is "inherently male" and "phallocentric" and not a part of "women's ways of knowing" and all that garbage.

Oh, and despite my slight quibbles, that was a very fascinating conversation. More, please!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

113. Comment #212184 by Styrer- on July 16, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Comment #212181 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 7:11 pm

He is quite possibly the greatest mind on the planet. I'm sure Richard Dawkins agrees with me

Some of us here - sir - including me - consider Richard Dawkins himself to be the greatest mind on the planet.

I am all for a good ding-dong, but your direct question of Richard seemed to me, Yadsmood, rude in the extreme.

If I am wrong, please tell me why.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

114. Comment #212186 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Some of us here - sir - including me - consider Richard Dawkins himself to be the greatest mind on the planet.

Richard evidently doesn't agree with you, as he made quite clear at the start of the interview when he claimed to be in awe of Weinberg.

In any case, I have no idea why you would think Richard is "the greatest mind on the planet". He's a fine biologist, but he would be very embarrassed if you insisted that he's the pre-eminent one alive.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

115. Comment #212197 by Styrer- on July 16, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Comment #212186 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 7:23 pm

You clearly have no knowledge of etiquette whatsoever.

'Hey Richard'? What is wrong with you? He's a fucking Oxford Professor; or simply 'Richard'.

'how does it feel to have an in-depth conversation with someone who's quite possibly the greatest mind on the planet?'

Do you not know that Dawkins' reputation, scholastic achievements and professional publications outweigh those of Weinberg? On both literary and scientific scales?

Who the fuck are YOU to ask such a question of such a man as Dawkins?

I'm all for a great deal of profanity, irreverence and debate; you, however, have just been intolerably rude to the man who made it possible, through his own website, for us all to see your snide little put-down of Dawkins.

Again - what's wrong with you?

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

116. Comment #212208 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Do you not know that Dawkins' reputation, scholastic achievements and professional publications outweigh those of Weinberg? On both literary and scientific scales?

No, you're wrong. Weinberg is among the very top scientists in the world in both h-index and creativity index. He wrote the definitive text on quantum field theory and won a Nobel prize. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm all for a great deal of profanity, irreverence and debate; you, however, have just been intolerably rude to the man who made it possible, through his own website, for us all to see your snide little put-down of Dawkins.

It wasn't intended to be a put-down, and I find it highly unlikely that Richard will see it as one.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

117. Comment #212209 by HappyPrimate on July 16, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Absolutely love these talks. Bought the DVD and can't wait to get it. Thanks so much for putting out the DVD. Look forward to many more such products from this site.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

118. Comment #212216 by MikeV on July 16, 2008 at 8:31 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Lourdes

Debunk One! 68 of them. If it is silliness; then it should be very easy. Go ahead

Wow, such grand studpity from such a small little man.

How can one debunk ancedotes? A crazy peasant lady claims she has seen a young girl, that no one else but her sees. How is this a miracle?

Also a few nice facts about this girl:

Her body, which is on display, is alleged to be incorruptible, but the face and hands, which look so lifelike, are made of wax.

Over the past 150 years, some 200 million people have made the pilgrimage.* For those who care, that's a success rate of .0000335% or 1 out of every 3 million. Furthermore, since 1947 anyone claiming a miraculous cure has to go before a medical board. "From 1947 to 1990, only 1,000 cures were claimed and only 56 were recognized in that time, averaging 1.3 cures a year, against 57 a year before 1914."* Since 1978, there have been only four recognized cures.* So, if you're thinking of going to Lourdes for a miracle cure, the odds are not very high in your favor.

Of all the cures alleged to have occurred at Lourdes, however, none have involved dramatic, unambiguous events like the growing back of a severed limb. Belgian philosopher Etienne Vermeersch likened this fact to the lack of clear, unambiguous data in support of the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. He also claimed that there have probably been significantly more fatal accidents suffered by pilgrims on their way to or from Lourdes than there have been cures.

Yeah, God never does anything impressive. The things he is most likely to cure are diseases that the body's immune system is able to fight off on its own (or with the help of science, 'cause I'm sure these people not only just prayed, they've also taken their meds).

Other Comments by MikeV

119. Comment #212217 by Styrer- on July 16, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Comment #212208 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 8:12 pm

While I am no scientist, I have read at least 'Facing Up', and am aware of his Nobel Prize.

So what?

Would my lack of knowledge somehow extenuate your gobshite rudeness towards one of the world's most brilliant scientists?

Fuckwit.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

120. Comment #212218 by 35bluejacket on July 16, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Richard had Kristopher's character nailed in the first post. Isn't it wonderful how rational thought can render people transparent?

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

121. Comment #212219 by Bonzai on July 16, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Layla

While I myself bristle at the idea that I wouldn't be able to "understand" or "get into" science (for example) simply because so many scientists happen to be males, I can understand that it can be a bit off-putting to have few people who "look like" you in the field. I guess the only way out is to continue to encourage women and "POC" to pursue careers and interest in science -- something that won't happen if it is claimed, per some misguided "feminist" scholars, that science is "inherently male" and "phallocentric" and not a part of "women's ways of knowing" and all that garbage.

Believing or not, I do agree with you. I was not making accusations like maybe utsusemia was,--though I can be wrong on that too. I was only relating my feeling, which I cannot control. It is like a picture that catches your eye because there is something odd about it. In pop culture science is identified with geekdom and boring people in lab coats and here "the voice of science" appear to be the voices of a bunch of old white guys in suit. I just can't help noticing it.

No, I never had "role models' that look like me, and I think the idea of role model is kind of lame anyway.

Other Comments by Bonzai

122. Comment #212226 by Layla Nasreddin on July 16, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Bonzai wrote:

Believing or not, I do agree with you. I was not making accusations like maybe utsusemia was,--though I can be wrong on that too. I was only relating my feeling, which I cannot control. It is like a picture that catches your eye because there is something odd about it. In pop culture science is identified with geekdom and boring people in lab coats and here "the voice of science" appear to be the voices of a bunch of old white guys in suit. I just can't help noticing it.

No, I never had "role models' that look like me, and I think the idea of role model is kind of lame anyway.

Well, I feel acutely aware of the fact that so many of the Outspoken Atheists are males (and white males at that). This is the case even though I always make sure to remind myself that it shouldn't be about the sex or race of the person putting forth certain ideas or arguments, it's the ideas and arguments themselves that matter -- all else is extraneous, insignificant detail. I feel ("feel" is certainly the right word) that this is something of a failing of mine in not being sex/color blind, but it's there nevertheless. So I definitely know what you mean about "I just can't help noticing it!" On the other hand, I definitely don't want to denigrate anybody because they, in fact, just happen to be white males, nor wish them to be replaced by women/minorities. Sigh.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

123. Comment #212228 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Would my lack of knowledge somehow extenuate your gobshite rudeness towards one of the world's most brilliant scientists?

You're hallucinating. I was not rude. If he finds anything in this exchange rude, I'll bet it's your foul-mouthed derailing of the thread.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

124. Comment #212235 by Styrer- on July 16, 2008 at 9:43 pm

Comment #212228 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 9:19 pm

As quite distinct from 'derailing this thread', let us re-visit your own contribution, much earlier, which has caused my hackles to rise:

Hey Richard, how does it feel to have an in-depth conversation with someone who's quite possibly the greatest mind on the planet?

Which, and you have utterly failed to convince me that I am wrong in doing, I read as:

Hey Richard, how does it feel to have an in-depth conversation with someone who is much - I repeat much - brighter than you?

Whatever your rebuttal, please do at least address me as 'Hey Styrer'. I will feel curiously elevated beyond my more natural level.

But obviously not quite professorial.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

125. Comment #212243 by fastmanfunnay on July 16, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Where is episode 1?

Other Comments by fastmanfunnay

126. Comment #212244 by Kristopher on July 16, 2008 at 10:21 pm

See, Richard... I have 0 state of uncertainty. You have maybe 1/2 probabilty about what you believe. Tried to tell you. You guys are just to smart for me.

Other Comments by Kristopher

127. Comment #212247 by Styrer- on July 16, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Comment #212244 by Kristopher on July 16, 2008 at 10:21 pm

See, Richard... I have 0 state of uncertainty. You have maybe 1/2 probabilty about what you believe. Tried to tell you. You guys are just to smart for me.

Kristopher

Your earlier '12-step-programme' message, with talk of addiction, made me think: are you addicted to Indian food as I am?

Perhaps not. Maybe something else: booze or drugs?

If you're still in thrall to the addiction, whatever it is, it might explain your utterly wankingly stupid comments here.

Would you care to share with us atheists here?

We're a caring lot, believe it or not.

Go on. Share. You know you want to.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

128. Comment #212254 by mordacious1 on July 16, 2008 at 11:01 pm

I finally got around to watching the videos today. Very enjoyable watching two brilliant minds discuss relevant topics of science. Thank you Richard for making these videos available to us here.

I am a little embarrassed that the thread was so quickly lowered to the level it is at now. I think on topics as this, people like Kristopher should be trolled and not responded to. I would prefer that posters discuss the material in the talk, saving the arguing with the trolls for other, less important threads.

I am glad to hear Dr. Weinberg discuss multiverses and string theory in a positive manner, after the beating they have taken from others on this site recently. They may not be proven to be correct in the long run, but they do lead to some interesting theoretical physics. I for one enjoy reading on these topics and will continue to do so until they are totally debunked, if that is the case.

Other Comments by mordacious1

129. Comment #212255 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Styrer,

I know that Richard is an admirer of Weinberg just like me, so I very much doubt he would have been offended by my comment. Enough of this nonsense.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

130. Comment #212269 by Styrer- on July 17, 2008 at 12:30 am

Comment #212255 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 11:11 pm

You were rude, sir, I submit. And even if Dawkins himself states that he doesn't mind your comment a bit, do you really think that you will thereby be utterly off the hook?

I remain offended.

But what do you care? You're a 'hip to the chick' kind of guy; a 'buzzin' while they're fuzzin'' geezer.

You're so down with your cool 'Hey Richard', eh?

Cool!

And asking him what he thinks of meeting a guy cleverer than him!

You are pure fucking class, man.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

131. Comment #212292 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 1:28 am

It's quite simple: Richard, despite being a sterling biologist and a marvelous writer, is not a contender for being the greatest scientist in the world. Weinberg is such a contender. Richard knows this full well, and I doubt he will be offended by my comment if he reads it.

In fact, he would only be offended if either (a) he aspires to be considered among the greatest minds in the world, or (b) he resents Weinberg's being elevated to that position. This seems to be your assumption. I think he would find that offensive.

Now please put a sock in it. There is no need for this hugely exaggerated, foul-mouthed tirade.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

132. Comment #212301 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 17, 2008 at 1:46 am

How nice to come back from vacation and find this interview!

Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

133. Comment #212311 by Styrer- on July 17, 2008 at 2:19 am

Comment #212292 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 1:28 am

It's quite simple: Richard, despite being a sterling biologist and a marvelous writer, is not a contender for being the greatest scientist in the world.

On what fucking basis do you decree that this is so, you little piss-ant?

Weinberg is such a contender. Richard knows this full well, and I doubt he will be offended by my comment if he reads it.

I do not give a monkey's tit if Richard remains unmoved by your words or not. I do, however, remain offended on his behalf. On the basis of what do you dare pronounce his global scientific importance as less than that of Weinberg's?

In fact, he would only be offended if either (a) he aspires to be considered among the greatest minds in the world, or (b) he resents Weinberg's being elevated to that position. This seems to be your assumption. I think he would find that offensive.

Again - on what basis do you dare presume to make such pronouncements?

Now please put a sock in it. There is no need for this hugely exaggerated, foul-mouthed tirade.

Your initial discourtesy to Richard, for which you have never apologised, your arrogant and unevidenced dismissal of him as a scientific 'world contender', your miserable lack of self-justification, beyond 'instructions' issued to me which you implore me to take seriously but which I find extremely risible, and your most insincere and supercilious tone convince me, you utter gobshite, that you are not worth either my time or my typing.

Take stock of yourself, young man, and re-calibrate that joke of a brain you possess to determine quite how far wrong you are in your poor assessment of Dawkins on the world stage.

Shithead.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

134. Comment #212314 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

On what fucking basis do you decree that this is so, you little piss-ant?

"Little piss-ant"? Good grief.

On the basis of what do you dare pronounce his global scientific importance as less than that of Weinberg?

If you knew the first thing about science, you would understand. Richard is probably not the pre-eminent evolutionary biologist. Most would give that honour to either Robert Trivers or George C. Williams. (It was Hamilton and Maynard Smith before their fairly recent deaths.) Weinberg, however, is one of the pre-eminent theoretical physicists in the world, and theoretical physics is an undoubtedly bigger and probably more difficult subject than evolutionary biology.

I say this without denigrating Richard, who has been a hero of mine for many years. I think Richard would wholeheartedly agree with all the above.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

135. Comment #212316 by Styrer- on July 17, 2008 at 2:29 am

Comment #212314 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

Piss-ant

I have already told you that I know of at least one other scientist's writings.

I have tried to read a good many more.

Your dismissal of Dawkins as a scientific world-contender only indicates to me that you have neither the wit nor the wisdom to spout, as you have been doing, on such matters.

You should both read and reflect more.

Now hurry along, you ignorant git.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

136. Comment #212318 by huzonfurst on July 17, 2008 at 2:31 am

Utsusemia, please refrain from the p/c hand-wringing. The people on this board are far beyond that, and to have you even mention such a possibility is insulting to us and demeaning to yourself.

And so what if, to assume your inaccurate suspicions for a moment, all the greatest scientists happened to be white males? Do you propose some kind of affirmative action to throw in a few not-so-great scientists just so you can feel better?

Back to the sixties with you, then - and stay there!

Other Comments by huzonfurst

137. Comment #212327 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 2:41 am

You should both read and reflect more.

Now hurry along, you ignorant git.

Oh, the irony!

Has anyone noticed that it's not only the Islamic fundamentalists who try to compensate for their lacking arguments with increased viciousness?

Other Comments by Yadsmood

138. Comment #212335 by Styrer- on July 17, 2008 at 3:02 am

Comment #212327 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 2:41 am

Piss-ant

Imagine that you are one of the most eminent scientists in the world. Imagine that you have a website which permits anyone to say whatever they like, within reason. Imagine that you bring to this website some interviews you're proud of, which feature other such great thinkers as yourself. Imagine that all the usual members of your site will be so very grateful, will learn and may even think a little bit more of you, just a teeny touch, for having done so. Imagine all that.

And then re-read your shitheaded rudeness to that precise man who has brought to you so much fucking knowledge while you have been on HIS website:

Hey Richard, how does it feel to have an in-depth conversation with someone who's quite possibly the greatest mind on the planet?

You take it in your stride, of course - you created this site for such idea banter.

And then the humdinger:

Richard, despite being a sterling biologist and a marvelous writer, is not a contender for being the greatest scientist in the world. Weinberg is such a contender. Richard knows this full well

Do you not see, piss-ant, that you have been most intolerably rude here to Professor Dawkins? I repeat that I do not give a shit about Richard's own opinion on this matter. I remain offended on his behalf, and I claim that right.

Do you get it yet? Or do you need yet more time?

You have even been utterly unable to back up your assertions.

I've taken my time up with you, but I now take just an extra moment to say to you - utterly ignorant shite that you are - FUCK OFF.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

139. Comment #212336 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 3:06 am

You are a boorish troll who is just looking for an excuse to spew vitriol. And you clearly have a hopelessly shallow knowledge and understanding of science.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

140. Comment #212406 by Cluebot on July 17, 2008 at 7:12 am

Yadsmood, Styrer, could you two please take this exchange to private messages?

Other Comments by Cluebot

141. Comment #212523 by Sciros on July 17, 2008 at 9:43 am

Awesome interview. It's a shame I don't know nearly enough about the physics Dr. Weinberg discussed to nod my head in understanding the way Prof. Dawkins did; I would have enjoyed it that much more.

Other Comments by Sciros

142. Comment #212603 by Fionn on July 17, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I find it embarrassing how defensive some people get about Richard.

He is, yes, a scientist, and a professor, and an all-round clever guy, within his discipline and some distance outside of it too.

But Greatest Mind of All Time? First of all, there is terminological ambiguity in the term "mind" which rather compromises the objectivity of that claim.

And besides all of this, there isn't any one person to whom you could ascribe the title Greatest Mind of All Time. That's just such an utterly silly notion. These people are clever people, in two different fields. That's enough. Urinating matches about it are just that: urinating matches.

Richard really doesn't need this sort of fanboy behaviour going on in his name. It actually demeans him that you're behaving so atrociously, supposedly on his behalf. You'll notice that even at his most vitriolic, he is never so crass or rhetorically bankrupt as to resort to name-calling like styrer has done.

And on a last note, it is no disrespect to use his forename here. I for one find the insistent "Prof. Dawkins" usage positively sycophantic. It smacks of reverence, and reverence is something which clouds the mind, and impedes rational discourse. This is a man we're talking about here, not a high priest, or need I remind you that? One can express substantive and deserved respect in less utterly incestuous ways.

Seriously, the level of defensiveness you get on this site seems to speak to the notion of blasphemy. In academic exchanges, since we often need to say what we think, we tend not to be nearly so prone to orthodoxies of respect and obedience. Needless to say, it's Richard's "daring" to say things that seriously offend other people that makes him a public figure of such integrity.

Other Comments by Fionn

143. Comment #212619 by Sciros on July 17, 2008 at 12:49 pm

142. Comment #212603 by Fionn

I for one find the insistent "Prof. Dawkins" usage positively sycophantic. It smacks of reverence, and reverence is something which clouds the mind, and impedes rational discourse. This is a man we're talking about here, not a high priest, or need I remind you that? One can express substantive and deserved respect in less utterly incestuous ways.

It's called addressing/referring to someone formally. How quickly you are to get on familiar terms with someone depends on many things, not least of which being how you were brought up. In any case, just because you personally reject formality doesn't make it sycophantic. Also, equating an academic title with one of reverence is silly, as is saying that referring to a professor as "professor ___" is "incestuous."

Everyone should just stop telling others how to address/behave towards Prof. Dawkins here. You included. How you address him is entirely between you and him. How I address him is entirely between myself and him. And so forth.

Other Comments by Sciros

144. Comment #212621 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 12:53 pm

But Greatest Mind of All Time? First of all, there is terminological ambiguity in the term "mind" which rather compromises the objectivity of that claim.

Nobody said "All Time". You are deliberately misrepresenting what was said.

In my opinion scientists are the cleverest bunch of people. It then takes no stretch of imagination to say Weinberg, being one of the best scientists in the world, is one of the greatest minds in the world.

Dawkins is a brilliant man, but he is not seen in the scientific community as one of the top scientists in the world, no matter how much invective Styrer churns out.

Other Comments by Yadsmood

145. Comment #212639 by Dinah on July 17, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Does it actually matter who has the greater mind, Richard or Steven Weinberg? Both men are intellectual heavyweights and geniuses, each contributing immeasurably to the advancement of science. To argue about whose mind is greater is rather like debating whether a sapphire is better than an emerald, or a rose more beautiful than a hydrangea: you can present evidence, and discuss the merits of your preference, but it will never be possible to find definitive answers to such questions because ultimately they will remain matters of opinion.

Incidentally, Richard stated on this site some time ago that he prefers to be called Richard.

Other Comments by Dinah

146. Comment #212644 by Fionn on July 17, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Nobody said "All Time". You are deliberately misrepresenting what was said.

If you will, "All Time" was for rhetorical effect. The operative object of disdain being the notion of debating whether one or other person is "cleverer" at all. Such an endeavour is bound to end up nowhere good, not least because of the absence of empirical evidence with a direct bearing on your claims.

In my opinion scientists are the cleverest bunch of people.

Well it's a good thing that you went and got the fact that it's your opinion out in the open. Now we don't have to argue about how ridiculous a notion it is to pit one academic discipline against another on the issue of which has the greater quotient of a hitherto improperly defined and unquantified property. As long as it's all just opinion, we can all go home happily; you and Styrer both.

I really must emphasize that titles like "greatest mind in the world" or "better mind" or things like that are only ever subjective, snap judgments: expressions of appreciation or awe at a person's achievements, addressed to the layperson, or meant, by implicature, only as exclamations. They don't lend themselves to objective substantiation, the issue of them being general in the extreme, and the meaning of them being so nebulous anyway. The idea of arguing competing claims on the title is absurd.

Argue instead, if you must, which academic is most esteemed, or some such tacitly measurable quantity. The "greatest minds" rendering has more to do with mythology than fact.

I should note that I considered your own comments relatively unobjectionable, if I may say so. The issue derives from styrer's construal of a challenge in your words. I trace the juvenile thread of the dispute to styrer. For you, I say only that your position is not one in need of defense.

Other Comments by Fionn

147. Comment #212666 by Yadsmood on July 17, 2008 at 2:15 pm

I really must emphasize that titles like "greatest mind in the world" or "better mind" or things like that are only ever subjective, snap judgments: expressions of appreciation or awe at a person's achievements, addressed to the layperson, or meant, by implicature, only as exclamations.

Yes and no. Scientific accomplishment and creativity is clearly not evaluated entirely subjectively, or anybody would be able to get tenure. And there's often large consensus about who are the most creative scientists in a given field.

As for my assertion that scientists are the cleverest bunch of people: well, admittedly, that includes mathematicians. Now this is quite a plausible opinion, and is not outrageous, as you're pretending. (I sincerely doubt that lawyers, sociologists, historians, lit critics, etc., are the best intellects in academia by any measure.)

Other Comments by Yadsmood

148. Comment #212669 by Fionn on July 17, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Everyone should just stop telling others how to address/behave towards Prof. Dawkins here. You included. How you address him is entirely between you and him. How I address him is entirely between myself and him. And so forth.

Agreed, for the most part. In fact, that was my substantive point. I expressed my distaste for the "Prof. Dawkins" usage as an example of how each should keep to their own, and how I would resent being petitioned, as was Yadsmood, to adopt a mode of address I find so sickeningly reverential and pompous.

This said, how I address him isn't really between he and I. I'm dubious as to whether he'd really care.

But, cordially, if I may defend myself from the issue of the first part of your reply, lest it be considered settled that the informal mode of address is somehow rude:

Also, equating an academic title with one of reverence is silly, as is saying that referring to a professor as "professor ___" is "incestuous."

This is an internet site, not an academic conference or a formal academic ceremony, or even a lecture theatre. If nothing else, the observance of his departmental chair in every use of his proper name is somewhat fastidious.

As far as I'm concerned, we all know who he is. He's the Charles Simyoni Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL. We need no reminder of his being a professor (and it's likely that he doesn't either!!) In my department, it's actually considered impolite to push a guy's title down his throat in every banal exchange.

So... if nothing else, it's long winded, and this is far from the (sinisterly cultic!! I never get used to it...) ceremonial academy. I begin to wonder if the observance persists only out of a sycophancy. But if you have other, less sinister motives, I politely withdraw my comment.

Other Comments by Fionn

149. Comment #212675 by Sciros on July 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Fionn, it was merely out of respect and how I was brought up, I suppose. I did think about how I should refer to Richard the first time I did it, and I settled on "Prof. Dawkins" because that sounded most appropriate to me at the time.

I tend to call most people by their title and/or surname if I we are not on casual terms, and I simply didn't presume being on those terms with Richard, even on this forum. Though I should mention that I only use titles if they're academic or within the particular discipline[s] of martial arts I practice. So "professor", "master", etc.

Incidentally, Richard stated on this site some time ago that he prefers to be called Richard.

Oh?

Do we still say "Prof. Dawkins" or will it become "Professor Emeritus Dawkins"?

I'd much rather be "Richard" to you lot.

Indeed!

Thanks. From here on out it will be "Richard," then.

Other Comments by Sciros

150. Comment #212686 by mordacious1 on July 17, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Yes. I certainly would call him Professor or Dr., but he keeps stridently asking to be called Richard. Go figure.

Other Comments by mordacious1