1. Beyond Belief 3: Candles in the Dark

Comment #267407 by Yadsmood on October 20, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Does Richard Dawkins intend to participate in the next Beyond Belief conference, if there is one? I hope he does. His insight and clarity of thinking could greatly contribute to the discussion -- even if it's centred around moral philosophy, as opposed to religion.

2. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240503 by Yadsmood on August 31, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I agree with Richard that I felt a surge of embarrassment as Colbert dragged on that awful, jingoistic song.

I dislike it that Colbert would create such an ambiguity. The crowd feels obligated to cheer, to avoid awkward quietness. But what situation does this depict to television viewers? Are we supposed to assume they're cheering the patriotism of the song, or what?

3. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240491 by Yadsmood on August 31, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Richard,

I didn't like this Colbert video, but I thought the "Beware the Believers" video GENUINELY funny. So did many people. We really did find it hilarious. It had nothing to do with perceived obligation.

Your insistence that we must be disingenuous is hard to understand. I can only assume that due to your age, you simply don't "get" the humour.

I suggest you drop this line of objection, as it makes you appear sore and stuck-up.

4. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #232638 by Yadsmood on August 18, 2008 at 12:24 pm

How old is this interview? If it was posted before 2003, the book he refers to might be Freedom Evolves.

In fact, since he doesn't refer to that book in the interview, that's what I'm betting.

5. Richard Dawkins interviewed about 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #222704 by Yadsmood on July 31, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Who knows if he would have been "outspoken"? There are numberless atheists who aren't outspoken. Don't equate atheism with militant atheism.

6. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #222003 by Yadsmood on July 30, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Yadsmood, I realise that. But a philosopher has to be revolutionary in order to make any contribution at all, whereas any engineer just has to be competent to make a significant and noteworthy contribution to society.

If that's true, it doesn't matter. Dennett has done more than anyone else to clear up the paralysing mind-body problem, which held humanity back for centuries. This in my opinion more will prove more valuable than the building of a house or bridge -- projects which thousands of engineers are ready undertake at any moment.

7. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #221789 by Yadsmood on July 30, 2008 at 6:06 am

But saying, "There are not many engineers who can boast of having rendered humanity such a valuable service." however, is a bit over the top, don't you think? Replace humanity with neuroscience and you might have a point. What have engineers done for us apart from basically everything that has improved our lives in any tangible fashion throughout the whole of history?

I was talking about individual engineers. Engineering is obviously extremely important, but there aren't many individual engineers to make "revolutionary" contributions. There are some, like Claude Shannon, but those are very special cases.

8. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #221670 by Yadsmood on July 30, 2008 at 1:41 am

I think philosophy isn't a subject and all these clever people should go do something worthwhile, even sociology would be a step up!!!!

Imagine what Dennett might have done if he had become an engineer.

Daniel Dennett has done perhaps more than anyone else to help new generations of scientists think about the problem of consciousness. There are not many engineers who can boast of having rendered humanity such a valuable service.

As Marvin Minsky has said, Dennett is redefining the role of a philosopher. Philosophy works best when it restricts itself to clarifying scientists' thinking.

9. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214771 by Yadsmood on July 20, 2008 at 9:56 pm

That really goes doubly for Antony Flew. Along with Einstein, who really cares what Flew believes now when it is clear he has lost his mind? It doesn't detract from the genius of his early works, where his brilliance, now obviously dissipated, still remains.

Flew was a "professional philosopher", which automatically sets off my bullshit detector. Sensible philosophers are in a minority in their field, I believe. His recent antics trigger my detector's alarm.

I find it hard to believe something like this would happen to a proper, committed atheist. Especially a philosopher, whose business is to master the concepts regarding which he now appears to have lost his touch. Very likely he was just a complete intellectual poseur.

He's wrong about Einstein, as should go without saying. There's a clear difference between saying (a) your religion is an "unbounded admiration" of the wonders of science, and (b) that the universe was designed by an intelligent being. Einstein visited (a) time and time again, while having little or no truck with (b).

10. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #214512 by Yadsmood on July 20, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Fionn,

Sorry, it appears I was unclear. I was not accusing you of hysteria. On the contrary, you seem a very level-headed and sensible person. I was trying to say that at this stage in the thread, the disproportionate response of Styrer's is the real issue. In comparison, my original remarks are of little significance. If they were 100% subjective, or even flat-out wrong, his insane reaction still can't be condoned.

11. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #214464 by Yadsmood on July 20, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Big deal. It's unimportant. At the very worst I am guilty of making subjective remarks. This is no reason to go hysterical, as Styrer did.

12. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #214449 by Yadsmood on July 20, 2008 at 1:28 pm

'tis murky waters. I wouldn't want to stand by any attribution of "most intelligent mind," or "greatest intellect" except as a subjective expression of appreciation.

It's not murky waters. Almost anyone who is competent in theoretical physics accepts that Steven Weinberg is one of the greatest theoretical physicists alive in terms of influence and accomplishment. There really aren't many people around nowadays who can be said to know as much about theoretical physics as Weinberg. (There's large consensus here.) Given the size and sheer difficulty of that field, this is very intellectually impressive indeed.

That's all I meant when I said he's "one of the world's greatest minds". And no, it's not like comparing Mozart and Shakespeare. Richard would be very embarrassed if he saw you lumping his name in with those two and Weinberg.

In the scientific community, Richard has never been seen as a contender for the title of "most creative evolutionary biologist". His main work has lied in (1) clarifying existing ideas of more mathematical (and most would say creative) theorists, (2) and teaching the public. Elevating him to the level of Weinberg, Mozart and Shakespeare constitutes an absurd exaggeration.

13. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #214344 by Yadsmood on July 20, 2008 at 9:20 am

You, Yasmood the Wankstain, are proving to be the ultimate troll, by dint of your clear and transparent inability to swallow your fucking pride in being earlier proven wrong by me, and to assist me with a genuine attack against the fucking theistic and irrational enemy.

Proven wrong? I don't remember that. You went hysterical over nothing, and ignorantly stated as if it were self-evident that "Dawkins' reputation, scholastic achievements and professional publications outweigh those of Weinberg". This is an outrageous claim, as you could have found out with even the briefest of trips to Wikipedia.

You threw a tantrum about my calling Richard Richard, despite that he has explicitly asked us to call him that. You also made the insulting assumption throughout that Richard considers himself one of the greatest minds in the world. That's the only way he would be offended by my praising up Weinberg (whom Dawkins has openly admittedly to being in awe of anyway).

If you think Richard is uncontroversially accepted as "one of the world's greatest scientists", you really don't know shit from Shinola. (One can admire the man all the same, as should go without saying.) I suggest you stop wasting your time here and go and read some science.

14. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #214181 by Yadsmood on July 19, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Bored, Styrer? Have you nothing else to do but post these venemous outpourings and huff and puff over imagined insults?

Wanna have another go?

Let's see what you've got, baby.

This confirms what his game is. Let's start flagging him as a troll.

15. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #214113 by Yadsmood on July 19, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Why hasn't this troll been banned? He is continually baiting people with entirely unnecessary, savage insults.

16. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #214083 by Yadsmood on July 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Ok, Im sick of this shit... Dr. Tyson is a genius. He could be the next Carl Sagan if he wanted to be, but racial prejudice is a part of society that we have to deal with. We shouldn't disclude him because of his race, and we shouldn't include him because of his race. Hes just a flat out genius.

First of all, I don't think many scientists would call him a "genius". He's a brilliant man, but "genius" is just going too far. (We generally reserve the word for someone of stunningly original/creative accomplishment.)

Second, he is a very eminent figure, arguably just as much so as Carl Sagan in the public eye. You have presented no evidence that he is being held back due to his skin colour. No evidence whatsoever. As far as I can see, you are going purely on blind faith.

17. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.)

18. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

19. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

20. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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?

21. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

22. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

23. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

24. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

25. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

26. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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.

27. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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"?

28. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

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?

29. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211841 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

He's taking the piss. I doubt he's a real Christian.

30. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211794 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 9:56 am

Yadsmood: Please, what are you after? You make it seem like I think everything is due to racism. Read my posts again and don't overreact so badly. I didn't mean half of what you say, and I wasn't even the one that started talking about it.

Neil Tyson is one of the most public scientists in the world. It doesn't matter whether you personally don't see much of him. Your personal experience is irrelevant.

Given that he is such an eminent figure, it is completely ludicrous to speculate (without evidence) that racism might be playing a role in marginalizing him.

(Kristopher is clearly a troll. Ban him, please.)

31. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211755 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

Yadsmood: No, surely he's respected. I just figured, since I don't find him in the public sphere as much as I do many other scientists, there could be some reasons for it. Apparently I don't as I'm not an American then.

The favourite in the ongoing Presidential race is a black man. Nowadays it's no longer legitimate to invoke racism for no good reason at all. By doing so, you engage in unfair, insulting, unsupported speculation.

If you're not an American, you should hardly expect to see as much of Tyson as various other scientists. As it is, he's arguably the most public scientist in America. It's hard to see how racism can play a role in this.

32. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211729 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 9:18 am

Huh, racism? Neil deGrasse Tyson has one of the most powerful public voices in American science. He's much better publicly known than any of the scientists featured in this thread, except perhaps RD himself.

33. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211704 by Yadsmood on July 16, 2008 at 8:59 am

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?

What an utterly outrageous thing to say.

34. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211235 by Yadsmood on July 15, 2008 at 4:22 pm

The discussion with Weinberg is fascinating. Before this I'd never seen Dawkins talk to anyone who's so clearly his intellectual superior.

By the way, when are the rest of the videos going to be posted?