1. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #32200 by katiemuffett on April 16, 2007 at 6:53 am

I wouldn't actually say that any of the popular scientists or philosophers that I've written to are elitist or particularly diffident towards those with no academic accolades. [Perhaps with the exception of Simon Blackburn who said that I should take an introduction to philosophy course rather than send round my own list of questions. I simply interpret this as group mentality - 'why should I try to learn in a different way to everyone else?' etc]

What I've come to experience is that popular scientists (science being the targeted subject of this article) have taken on the mantle of celebrity, and are therefore placing themselves at a distance to 'the public'. I get the impression from my rejection letters that they are not so much disdaining me as some kind of upstart, as they are wary of expressing any 'unofficial' comment that could be released to the media.

I'm afraid those in question need to get used to defending their cause not just in an offical, academic capacity, but in dynamic public forums like those on this site. Blah blah, the media shows no interest at the moment. I've taken time out of my unqualified, dumbass life to show my interest, just as all of you have shown interest. They're not popstars, they're scientists. It's not like anyone's throwing bras at them or chasing them screaming down a train platform. No one cares if Lewis Wolpert is photographed wearing a mini skirt and no pants at a nightclub. Well, they probably would.

In response to the focus of this article, Dawkins is one of the few popular scientists that I know of who has carried on the public discourse that the Carl Sagan generation so brilliantly and generously engaged in. In fact, the one thing I would personally say is that he is not in the slightest elitist, and that his zeal is not at all mixed with arrogance. Agreeing with him isn't the point, being able to openly argue with him is (hence the job title).

- Isn't there something distinctly incongruous about accusing Dawkins of taking the soul out of humanity when he can also be equally criticised for letting passion cloud his judgement? I would much prefer an angry Jeremiah among the people than a pious Abraham in the clouds - if that isn't too sacrilegious a comparison to make on this site.

Blimey that's a long post.

2. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29358 by katiemuffett on April 2, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Wow! Nearly midnight and the commentary rages on...

I have only one form of personal experience with postmodernism, as an artist. Apparently, I am not postmodern because my work is 'naive' and 'too primitively aesthetic'. I'm always asked the question: "But what is it saying? What is your point in this?"

I use the great Wilde fall back: All art is completely useless. My work does not only have cerebral meaning for me; most non-postmodern patrons I've had never ask for the background of a picture - they have their own strong reaction instead. This would lead me to assume that my work never definitively has anything to say, nor any discernable point.

Is any of that postmodern? Beats me, I'm too tired.

Now, can someone please call me names? I'm beginning to feel left out.

3. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29230 by katiemuffett on April 2, 2007 at 6:53 am

Speaking from outside academic discipline, I have always wanted to know how simplicity stands in terms of analysis and - ultimately - truth, in academic study.

"Some people with Phd's just don't know how to reason."

During the Christmas debate at the Dana Centre last year, I was shocked at how some of the panellists generalised so broadly, even guessing at figures and percentages. I know it was intended as informal, but they were still mean to be speaking in their professional capacities. The level of bias all round seemed pretty obstructive to reason.

To a lay person, it isn't clear when academics are working using precision and accuracy and when they are 'inspired' (to use a dubious word) in the Eintsteinian sense.

I think this is a crucial point in Sam Harris' latest debate, about atheism (science more particularly) having such terrible PR. Science as a whole is quite exclusive, even to someone like me who desperately tries to comprehend what people like Dawkins are talking about.

4. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29211 by katiemuffett on April 2, 2007 at 5:36 am

At last, a form of feminism with NO fluid control.

Reminds me of those commercials when I was a kid "Mom, do you ever get that not-so-fresh feeling?"

I go to read an article during my lunch hour and what do I get? Male power rods and feminist fluids. Thank you very much.

"Tastes like...burning!"