I love it when Dawkins comes on telly. Some people just have to fall into the trap of trying to rescue their chosen profession from his glare. So, Neil Spencer at the Guardian has had a go:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/revie...s&feed=science
Absolutely bloody hilarious.
Here are some highlights:
"There was the usual objection to astrology dividing people into 12 Sun signs, and my usual reply: that's eight more than the Myers-Briggs personality test used by commerce. Actually, astrology's basic personality types number 1,728."
HAHAHAH!!!!!! Honestly, I really need the toilet now.
Oh, and there's more:
"Homeopathy's supposed cures are, according to Dawkins, merely the result of the placebo effect. 'It's our own minds that cure the pain,' he concludes. How that explains why animals respond to homeopathy isn't confronted."
Oh stop!!! No, don't carry on, it's hurting!!!!
"The placebo effect is real enough, as any GP knows, but common sense and a wealth of personal testimony attest that there are other processes at work in treatments like homeopathy. For scientism, however, personal experience is not admissible. Everything must be subject to randomised, controlled double-blind trials, just like medical drugs - 'drugs that work' as Dawkins insists."
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! So before those nasty scientists will believe something works, they ONLY HAVE TO GO AND PROVE IT!!! How unreasonable is THAT??!!!! ooo, nasty, nasty science.
"blah...blah...blah....This, let's remind ourselves, is the same benevolent pharmaceutical industry exposed by a 2003 Observer inquiry as routinely hoodwinking doctors with ghost-written articles about their products, a practice the editor of the British Journal of Medicine called 'a very big problem'."
Oh, I see: "Big pharma nasty, therefore, alternative medicine good". That's OK then, let's try some other crazy equations based on the same fluffy universe that Neil lives in shall we?
Errrm... "USA Government Policy bad, therefore, Taliban fighting to take over Afghanistan good". Exact same argument, i.e., bollox.
Oh, hang on, he provides another argument as if to ram home his own idiocy:
"There are frauds, scamsters and incompetents in the mind/body/spirit arena, but the same is true of applied science. Its assumed halo turns downright grubby when one considers its graduates' willingness to put ethics aside for questionable industrial practices - dowsers or chanters don't devise ever deadlier land mines."
See? Dowsers don't make land mines, therefore they can find water with bent coat-hangers.
The whole article is brilliant, in a 'how to write a crap article' kind of way, so you should read it because trust me, the woos will be sending links to all their spiritual friends as if this Neil fella as if he's found the ultimate argument against the Dawkmeister.
Oh, and a final quote : "It prefers to view humanity as a random accident"
Oh dear. Oh deary deary dear.
Nuts, just realised this should be under the thread in media. Ah well, I was laughing so much I didn't check!
Total quackpots are hilarious but this guys appears pretty talented and well educated. This just makes it really sad for me that he's wasting his life with pseudo-scientific junk. If only he had picked up some basic critical thinking skills somewhere along the way he could be writing good stuff.
I think what's tragic is many woo pushers are extremely well educated. Critical thinking appears to be a skill totally seperate from mainstream education. My education was crap, but I can recognise bullshit a mile off.
I think I might understand why Mr. Spencer wrote that now.
LOL!!!
Yeah, he was rubbish wasn't he? In fact, not one of the 'woos' had any good argument at all. It was like shooting fish in a barrel really. Quite embarrassing for all those involved, Dawkins didn't really have to do anything, just listen to them dig their own hole and gently lower themselves in it.
Originally Posted by Sgt Badass
Funny how his astrology column in the same day's paper just had the usual 12.
I think my sig sums it up.
From Sgt. BadassA few highlight's from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magaz...276938,00.html with my emphasesI love it when Dawkins comes on telly. Some people just have to fall into the trap of trying to rescue their chosen profession from his glare. So, Neil Spencer at the Guardian has had a go:
Well better file for divorce nowQ I'm a Sagittarian with, I'm told, Pisces rising (5 December 1978). Which are my most compatible signs?
Jenny Donald, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
A Astrology judges compatibility by a sign's element - earth and water signs get along, as do air and fire (fire and water equal a dead fire and a lot of steam). However, since one looks at Sun, Moon, Venus and Mars for hints about relationships, the field is usually wide open. Don't restrict yourself - maybe try an Aquarius, which is where your Moon sits.
...and...
Leave this chap alone, he's fupping hilariousQ Regarding your recent predictions for Aries: yes, I do have blocked drains, but I didn't go dancing last weekend or encounter romance. Wrong! I am 70 and suffer with arthritis. Let's face it, your predictions, while fun to read, are only for the young.
Rebecca England, Wiltshire
A You'd be amazed how many forty- and fiftysomethings are obsessed with romance (it's the divorce generation). If I err towards the young at heart, I apologise, but subjects like money, property and the social round are not age-related. The planetary energy simply arrives in different form; a twentysomething's Mars transit, driving far too fast to a party, becomes a seventysomething's aggressive whist drive
He is! He's only just appeared on my radar, I really had never heard of him but he's almost a parody of an astrologer. If he were to pop up next year and say "it was all a ruse to see if you'd fall for it" I'd believe him!Leave this chap alone, he's fupping hilarious
Critical Dawkins
Quote from above article
"For the most part, when people do say ‘oh, it’s because I’m a typical Scorpio’, they are being tongue-in-cheek, and making a throwaway comment that is only intended to communicate a widely recognisable character trait to another person. Incredibly, even that banal and harmless saying ‘touch wood for luck’ was cited as evidence by Dawkins that we have all gone mad for mysticism. He clearly needs to get out more.
The trouble is that even when he does get out more, his reductive approach to humanity means he cannot seem to get beyond his rehearsed ‘these people are stupid’ outlook."......
To be fair, it isn't just tongue in cheek for everyone.
A president of the USA used astrology to make decisions.
My colleague's wife thinks astrology must work because the planets just have to have an effect on us.
There really are a lot of people who think it is a genuine effect.
And Dawkin's point was that unchallenged belief in stuff like this leads to a society where supernatural belief is accepted. Then you get all kinds of stuff happeneing which is not benefical for society as a whole.
Yeah, but these people *are* stupid. I mean, it's OK to believe something, but to believe something even when you've just been shown all the evidence, well, that's just arrogantly stupid.
I wonder what happened to the Dawkins aura Photograph from episode one? I would love to see it turn up on ebay auctioned for a suitably rational cause.
It would look great in my office.... 8)
That's a rather poor critique of the programme. In fact, it's more like a personal pop at Dawkins than a proper critique of the programme.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks