What's Wrong With Richard Dawkins?

[westprog]

On which count do you think Dawkins fails?

I don't think Dawkins fails as a popular science writer - it's just that Gould is a master at it. It's not really a fair comparision.

 

[Mashuna]

I don't think Dawkins fails as a popular science writer - it's just that Gould is a master at it. It's not really a fair comparision.

I guess it's just a personal preference thing then. I've tried a couple of Gould's books, but never made it past halfway. It's very rare for me not to finish a book. The Dawkins' books that I've read I get through in a day or two, then go back and read them again, slowly.

I don't know if it's style, or just that the method of explanation clicks with me.

 

[articulett]

I guess it's just a personal preference thing then. I've tried a couple of Gould's books, but never made it past halfway. It's very rare for me not to finish a book. The Dawkins' books that I've read I get through in a day or two, then go back and read them again, slowly.

I don't know if it's style, or just that the method of explanation clicks with me.

Same here. Gould was prolific, but I can only digest a chapter or 2. Dawkins flows. I suspect Dawkins critics have not really read him. Nor an entire Gould book.

 

[CFLarsen]

Same here. Gould was prolific, but I can only digest a chapter or 2. Dawkins flows. I suspect Dawkins critics have not really read him. Nor an entire Gould book.

You mean, they haven't "read him" the way you have. Therefore, they are by definition wrong.

But I do find it telling that you admit that you have a hard time understanding Gould's arguments.

 

[Mashuna]

But I do find it telling that you admit that you have a hard time understanding Gould's arguments.

I must have missed this admission. Only reading part of a book is not the same as not understanding the arguments.

 

[westprog]

I guess it's just a personal preference thing then. I've tried a couple of Gould's books, but never made it past halfway. It's very rare for me not to finish a book. The Dawkins' books that I've read I get through in a day or two, then go back and read them again, slowly.

I don't know if it's style, or just that the method of explanation clicks with me.

De gustibus, YMMV, and so on. I find Gould's essay approach makes him an ideal bathroom book.

 

[Complexity]

I haven't read any Gould yet, where's a good place to start?

Wow. I'm jealous. I loved discovering Gould's books and had to wait until each came out. You're in for a great read.

Gould wrote a monthly column in Natural History magazine for many many years. Each month, he wrote an essay on some aspect of science. I think many of these essays are superb.

Many of these essays have been collected into a series of nine books. The essays are accessible, informative, thought provoking, and well written. I can't think of a better place to start - just read them in order:

Ever Since Darwin
The Panda's Thumb
Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes
The Flamingo's Smile
Bully for Brontosaurus
Eight Little Piggies
Dinosaur in a Haystack
Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms
The Lying Stones of Marrakech
​

He wrote several other books, many of which I've read, a few of which I still hope to read.

His book, The Mismeasure of Man, is a good read and is hated by at least one member of the forum - I recommend it highly.

His great life work is The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. I would love to read it some day.

He wrote several other books, but I think you've got enough to get started.

 

[Mashuna]

De gustibus, YMMV, and so on. I find Gould's essay approach makes him an ideal bathroom book.

It's been a few years since I tried last, I'll give the books another go.

 

[articulett]

when you "go".

 

[Mashuna]

De gustibus, YMMV, and so on. I find Gould's essay approach makes him an ideal bathroom book.

It's been a few years since I tried last, I'll give the books another go.

when you "go".

I suppose that's an option for a bathroom book.

 

[articulett]

QED

 

[CFLarsen]

I must have missed this admission. Only reading part of a book is not the same as not understanding the arguments.

Just read and understand the words:

Gould was prolific, but I can only digest a chapter or 2.

 

[JoeEllison]

Just read and understand the words:

Maybe you should try to do the same?

 

[Mashuna]

Just read and understand the words:

Well, digest is not the same as understand. Although it would probably be easier if we just asked Articulett to clarify what she meant.

Articulett, when you said you could only digest a couple of chapters of Gould, did you mean you found it hard to understand, or that you found the writing stodgy. Or any other option of your choice.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I don't think Dawkins fails as a popular science writer - it's just that Gould is a master at it. It's not really a fair comparision.

It's just when you said "It's possible to write good science, and it's possible to write easily understood science for the layman, but combining the two is next to impossible. Either you make it too inaccessible, or you lose important detail. Gould managed to circumvent this limitation" it gave me the impression that you found Dawkins lacking on one of those counts. Personally I consider Dawkins a master of communicating science to the layman without dumbing it down and if Gould is similarly skilled then I look forward to reading his stuff.

 

[articulett]

In re: what I meant regarding "digestion" and Gould

I compared it to Dawkins' writing flowing. Gould's writing is "thicker". More like Dennett's (whom I also enjoy).

You have to wade through lots of reading to get Gould's nuggets... a chapter at a time maybe... But I read Dawkins in one sitting and feel like I've understood more. Dawkins is "sharper" to me. Funnier. I like everything he writes. With Gould I need to dig through a lot more to find the good stuff. And I bet I could run circles around Dawkins' critics describing both of their writings, btw.

I suspect I've read a lot more Dawkins and Gould than Claus... which is why I have him on ignore. He just like to insult people so he can feel special and super duper. I don't care what Claus has to say about me or Dawkins and I am content to let those who do care respond to him. And I've already seen him twist my words so badly that I have no doubt that he will imagine that I've said Gould was the anti-christ if I keep up on the subject. He imagines I called Shermer a (gasp) wimp because I find his writing more "namby pamby" than Dawkins. What can I say, I like a little feist in my authors.

Does Claus ever have an actual point? Does he ever contribute to the OP? Or is it constantly a derailment to prop up the conversation in his head? To me, he is always derailing threads to have a straw man arguments (just as he appears to be doing now.) He wants to assert or argue his interpretation of what I said. Ugh.

He hates when I post this, but I find it so illustrative of some folks:

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

I have lost the ability to imagine anything of value coming out of conversation with CFLarsen. Some folks can't evolve. But I must make a disclaimer: This is MY opinion. Opinions are not facts. I heartily endorse everyone else's indulgence of Claus to their hearts content. Perhaps he is just too deep, diplomatic, and intellectual for me. (Or perhaps he is secretly in love with me... and I've hurt his ego and now he must stalk me for all his days-- yeah... that must be it-- otherwise, why wouldn't he just put me on ignore--the way I do for people whom I don't think measure up to my intellectual standards?)

 

[westprog]

It's just when you said "It's possible to write good science, and it's possible to write easily understood science for the layman, but combining the two is next to impossible. Either you make it too inaccessible, or you lose important detail. Gould managed to circumvent this limitation" it gave me the impression that you found Dawkins lacking on one of those counts. Personally I consider Dawkins a master of communicating science to the layman without dumbing it down and if Gould is similarly skilled then I look forward to reading his stuff.

I'd be interested to hear what you think. And I haven't read much of Dawkins science writing recently, so I won't make an off the cuff comment about it. I might go back to River Out Of Eden, say, and give it a critical viewing. The God Delusion is another matter entirely,. and I doubt if I could comment objectively.

 

[Civilized Worm]

It was actually the God Delusion that got me in to science as I found the parts of the book I enjoyed the most were when he was talking about science rather than religion.

I'm in the middle of River out of Eden right now and there's a couple of other books I'm planning on reading but hopefully I'll get around to some Gould soon.

 

[Damien Evans]

I, of course, observe the same world you observe. Amazing, just take the stand that god beliefs are undeniable woo and so many other things come in to focus such as the double standard applied to passionate atheism, or even just plain atheism of the truly convinced.

I'm sorry folks, Zeus, Jesus and Pele are all myths. If I said Zeus and Pele were myths, no one here would call me an atheist proselytizer.

Pele?

A myth?

Say it ain't so!

 

[Damien Evans]

You're a girl and an American so you get a pass on what was a very clever joke by hgc. The guy in the photo he posted was Brazilian soccer player Pele.

... and I get beaten to it again ...