Is Richard Dawkins intellectually vain?

plumjam said:
Is it just me, or is Senor Dick Dawkins a bit of an unforseen genetic diversion ;)
I'm sure he's a more than averagely intelligent sort of bloke, but everytime i've seen him on tv or youtube he's had the air of someone quite impressed by his own existence.
Anyone else feel the same?
Click to expand...


To me, the people who criticize him are intellectually vain. I think they are jealous because he actually has valuable information to convey, and his critics wish people were as eager to listen to them.

Dawkins words and information earn him the fans he has. His critics seldom have anything of value to say, but they elevate themselves mentally by pretending to be "more intellectually" humble then him.
 
Civilized Worm said:
I've seen a lot of really pathetic ad hominems against Dawkins but god damn does this take the cake.
Click to expand...

But...as my sig notes... the stupid ones never know it's them. The OP isn't as transparent to himself/herself as s/he is to us, and so can't learn how to improve communication-- you know the simple mind-- certain they have much to teach others... clueless at their own vast ignorance. (You must admire the forthrightness in which they blunder onto a skeptics forum and start posting blithely as if they don't realize they are blinking red on the woo meter.) Sometimes I think their "intelligent designer" sends them to us for our amusement. :)

When one starts threads with a much greater ratio than they respond to other threads... that's always a sure sign. Insincere questions as thread starters is another... It's kinda cute...
 
plumjam said:
well, i just find him overly self-satisfied, and find that he gives pretty pathetic excuses for neo-darwinism out of necessity... he has some emotional attachment to old Charlie when any really reflective and upstanding englishman would have backed away from old Chaz many years ago ;)
Click to expand...
If you consider yourself a "really reflective and upstanding englishman", perhaps you could distance yourself from Darwin by sending me any ten pound notes you don't want.

DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg
 
Dr Adequate said:
If you consider yourself a "really reflective and upstanding englishman", perhaps you could distance yourself from Darwin by sending me any ten pound notes you don't want.

[qimg]http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Images/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Cool! I wish I was British. We still have "In God We Trust" on our money. I'm part of "we"... I don't believe in any gods. But Darwin--he was brilliant!
 
plumjam said:
Does he ever say anything about the species barrier or the stasis nature of the fossill record?
No, and neither do the "Skeptics"
Click to expand...
I imagine that, like us, he says that these are lies which creationists tell as a substitute for having any actual evidence for their views.

I've shown up your nonsense about the "species barrier" on the other thread you're trolling. Now, about that stasis ...

foram_work.gif


238px-Ceratopia.jpg


575px-Dinosaur-to-Bird.jpg


jaws1.gif


hominids2_big.jpg


fossil_hominin_cranial_capacity_lg.png
 
feline time.

Kittens, recipes, assorted critters and other derails in the public areas are bad, mmkay?
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darat said:
And will you be supplying any evidence for your allegation of "bullying"?
Click to expand...

Nah... he's just attacking Dawkins because he's "different" (ie smarter than him) and he's bullying us into buying his claim. :D Who needs evidence when you have faith?
 
Dr Adequate said:
If you consider yourself a "really reflective and upstanding englishman", perhaps you could distance yourself from Darwin by sending me any ten pound notes you don't want.

[qimg]http://www.csuchico.edu/~curban/Images/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I used to love the 10 pound note. I would always try and keep one handy when in England.
 
articulett said:
Yeah. And strident and shrill and militant. When facts don't work-- use emotional semantics. The courtier's reply.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
Click to expand...

Our tolerance of an individual's irrational beliefs or behavior should start tapering off as they leave childhood and enter adolescence, and end completely when they're considered by society to be adults.

Regardless, it's been established that facts don't work on people who rely on "faith" to make decisions. In those cases I ask, why not enjoy a laugh at their expense? You're not going to convert them with logic and reason anyway, and meanwhile, they're trying to twist society to be in-line with their irrational beliefs.

Dawkins is a thousand times more "nice" than these people deserve, and about a million times more nice than I would be in his shoes. A handful of courtesy weighs about as much as a shovelful of faith, and in many cases is just as useful in accomplishing things. But a fist full of shame, now that can get results, even if those results are just the amusement of other people like yourself.
 
Dude, I've met intellectually vain people at university, and here's a list of qualities I think classify a person as intellectually vain.

1: Repeating other people's ideas as though they were your own, not only without attribution, but as though you had come up with them.

2: Name dropping famous people you know, who are irrelevant to the topic.

3: Using personal opinion as though it were a fact.

Just cite examples of Dawkins doing any of these three things. Or, if you find my criteria wanting, state your own and cite specific examples. If I claimed that, say, Bill O'Reily is vain, I'd cite the times he's claimed to have received awards he never got.
 
plumjam said:
yes, he's crap,
just in it for the money
Click to expand...

Oh. care to gives us a wee list of all his papers and point out exactly why each and every one is "crap"?

Oh, and can you also provide some evidence that "he's just in it for the money"? Or shall this wild assertion just be jutted won on the list of other wild, unsubstantiated claims you have made?
 
plumjam said:
he definitely is impressed by his own existence, and seems so attached to his own theories that he would never give a fair hearing to anyone arguing against his own dear dogmas
Click to expand...

Whenever I have seen similar comments this week, I have asked for examples of where he is - in his own words, not those of people apparently quoting him - impolite, discourteous, arrogant etc. He gives to all the people he speaks to ample time to give their answers.

No responses so far.
 
Dawkins appears positively charming, if at times irascible, and not at all arrogant, if that is what "intellectual vain" suggests to me. Mind you I always found Dr Sue Blackmore, with whom I disagree on everything pretty much, extremely friendly, considerate, charming and polite - whereas some of my friends says he is the "rudest woman in Christendom".

I therefore suspect that in some cases disagreement over other issues may influence some peoples perceptions - or i just regard people in a better light than most. :)

cj x
 
plumjam said:
Edited by prewitt81: 
Multiple breaches removed


plumjam, you are again warned to be civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81
Click to expand...

Jeeze, I didn't think my lame Aussie-Cockney pastiche would enrage anybody; kinda hoped plumjan would get a smile out of it. I guess the class system is not funny across the puddle. Sorry.

prewitt81, is there any chance you could PM me with plum's invective? I have a lot of bad habits, and need to be STERNLY DISCIPLINED.
 
Not knowing Dawkins personally, he has seemed like a nice enough person at the conferences.

What if he is vain, so what! There are lots of vain people in the world, he is at least trying to improve our understanding of the universe and suceeding quite well in a number of ways.

I would expect a certain level of cockyness from people who have made major contributions to science. They are use to being right, just because they might be a bit vain, doesn't make their arguments wrong.

By definition, the OP is an ad hominem by trying to cast doubt on Dawkins ideas because of someone's perception of his personality.
 
articulett said:
feline time.

Kittens, recipes, assorted critters and other derails in the public areas are bad, mmkay?
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope
Click to expand...

Awww, c'mon, Miss Anthrope! No kittens?! There's nothin' in the rules about them! :)

Plus, they're cute.
 
Yes, although the interpretation of the rules (as told to Cuddles in forum management) tells us that one kitten is OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom