Christopher Hitchens has died

MagicMarker wrote: »

Your whole arguments boils down to your opinion that Dawkins' gets more credit than he deserves, which, is just your opinion.

Wrong again.

My argument boils down to my opinion that Dawkins gets credit from the wrong crowd and for the wrong reasons.

later10 wrote: »

I pity anybody who takes this view.

No you don't, because you do exactly the same thing.

You allow others to dictate to you the extent of another man's genius?
I presume you're the sort of person who concludes that Richard Feynman was a genius precisely because everyone else says so.

You called Dawkins "a distinguished biologist" on what do you base that opinion, seeing as you haven't read any of his scientific work.
You can make as many "I presume" comments as you like, this is a childishly amusing tactic of those who are unable to discuss a topic in a rational and adult manner.

That's precisely how the Messiah went viral. Clearly skimming through richard Dawkins hasn't taught you anything.

You certainly do come out with some crap.

later10 wrote: »

Absolutely not.

One poster asked me to list some people who I believed were or had been eminent intellectuals and I listed three with whose work I was familiar precisely for that reason.

I wouldn't list generally accepted geniuses like Picasso or Zygmundt Bauman or Claire Tomlin because I don't know very much about them nor their contributions to their respective disciplines. I certainly wouldn't call them geniuses just because some experts give them that title.

First, what is this genius crap you keep spouting? The only person here using that word is you.

Your problem appears to be that you feel it is acceptable to congratulate a body of work or its author without actually making any attempt at understanding it.

Made up bullshit.
I said, the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers.

Firstly, I have read his work and I am quite aware of the reasons why Dawkins deserves respect as an evolutionary biologist.

Which works? and are you an expert in this field and therefore qualified to make such a judgement?
And why did you state this...."I just don't see him any more deserving of praise than the authors of my old science textbook for the junior certificate curriculum"
Had you read TSG, TEP or any of his scientific papers you would know he goes a little further than the junior cert curriculum.

Secondly, I'm not sure that you understand what is meant by "distinguished". This simply means that the man commands respect, which is an easily proven objective fact.

People command respect for a reason, unless you are qualified in a field ignoring the opinions of those that are, is the work of fools. There is a peer review process in science for a reason.

I certainly didn't call him a genius, although anybody who is familiar with his academic work and/or his contribution to evolutionary biology and biodiversity, and can appreciate the unique contribution Dawkins has made, myself included, is perfectly entitled to do so. Personally I wouldn't call him a genius but to do so is largely a matter of opinion anyway.

Your obsession with the word genius is getting funny now.

You really are (and quite obviously) only arguing for the sake of it.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

First, what is this genius crap you keep spouting? The only person here using that word is you.

I'm making a point in relation to the genius of Dawkins (I'm using that as a short hand term for a supposedly striking intellectual eminence in the public sphere) as celebrated by those who generally haven't read, or are unfamiliar with, his most important works.

I said, the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers.

Absurd.

You don't think a better manner of establishing the level to which one is a distinguished scientist or thinker is to examine their contribution to their field? I mean couldn't you even check on the likes of wikipedia to read how they have contributed to their discipline in a unique and pioneering way?

You would just take someone else's word for it without enquiry?

Now that's what I call blind faith.

It's also exasperatingly stupid.

Which works? and are you an expert in this field and therefore qualified to make such a judgement?

No. I wouldn't call myself an expert in evolutionary biology by any stretch.

Because I have read some of Dawkins material - and certainly his most important material on biodiversity, I can observe his contribution to his discipline. Equally one can pick up a book on Ernest Rutherford and read how the gold foil experiment led to the modelling of the atom and be impressed at the man's singularity and therefore consider his mind reasonably unique, perhaps even brilliant.

You don't need to be a genius of the equal calibre to appreciate a work of intellectual rigour. But you do need to actually see that work, or understand its contribution before you can agree that it is a work of profound intellectual attainment.

Compare that to your preferred method of simply reading the reviews and declaring a piece of work brilliant based on other people's opinions.

It's a bit like being a fan of Stanley Kubrick simply because that's what all the intelligent people are into right now. It's so daft I can't believe you admit it.

And why did you state this...."I just don't see him any more deserving of praise than the authors of my old science textbook for the junior certificate curriculum"

I was referring specifically to his writings on atheism. Perhaps I should have clarified that, but I think it ought to be clear from the post, and at that point in the discussion the conversation was still on atheism.

Around the time I wrote that post, I did of course make it clear that my particular problem was with Dawkins's most recent books, although I don't share your bounding enthusiasm for the Selfish Gene either.

Had you read TSG, TEP or any of his scientific papers you would know he goes a little further than the junior cert curriculum.

Had I read it?

Are you kidding me?

You just said you haven't read Dawkins most important pop science book (by his own account and also the best received - since you care - what does that say about you and your appreciation of Dawkins?)

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Again you are the only one here going on about this intellectual eminence, I stated right at the start of this discussion with you that he isn't a philosopher.

Expand on that.

Someone possessing or perceived to possess an eminent mind is not by definition a philosopher.

Of course I am the one talking about intellectual eminence. The central point I am making is that some so-called New Atheists (although I struggle to understand what is new about a barenaked epistemological position) who read the work of Dawkins on atheism seem to celebrate Dawkins's purported eminence based on these largely unremarkable, repetitive, tautological paperbacks.

Whether or not you said Dawkins is a philosopher is immaterial, and whether or not you personally profess Dawkins to be a genius or not is entirely irrelevant.

If this isn't your field then you havn't read any of his scientific papers.

Excuse me? English literature isn't my field either, does that mean I am not allowed read Eliot?

For goodness sake I don't know exactly how old you are but this is 2011, do you know what JSTOR is? Do you seriously believe that people only read journals pertaining to those disciplines in which they themselves have a vocation? Don't you read anything outside of your own field?

What important work by him have you read, I won't ask again.

It would be entirely contrived of me to google Dawkins journal article and pretend I remembered the titles. I know he wrote a lot of stuff on biodiversity from the 80s around the time of his most important pop science book, which was the second book of his that I read (The Extended Phenotype). Now would you like me to take a photograph for you with today's newspaper and me looking studiously at a book?

Making up things, claiming people said them and then dismissing them as daft, is quite pathetic.

Oh you said this alright.

I said, the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers.

Amazing.

Do you walk into art galleries and ask the curators which paintings you ought to like and at which you ought to scoff?

I'm really interested, why on Earth do you think the best way to find out the extent of a man's talent is to ask somebody else?

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

What is your opinion of Eliot? Which of his works have you read? Because unless you are familiar with Four Quartets, Murder in the Cathedral and The Cocktail Party, your reading has no authority

Add The Waste Land and Prufrock to that and I'd say you have a point.

If someone walked up to me and said Eliot was a poetic genius, and it transpired that they had never read (or were essentially not aware of) his most famous works, which are mentioned in this post, I would be slightly amused.

If that person then started using Eliot as an intellectual crutch to compensate for their own incapacity, I would be even more amused.

So it is with many New Atheists and the likes of Richard Dawkins.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

The point you overlooked is the Eliot scholar could credibly argue that his most famous works were neither his best nor his most significant.

The first point you over-looked is that nobody claims that those works you mentioned earlier are Eliot's most famous works, as you said yourself unless one has read or sat through those works, it's hard to credit the critic with much authority. Therefore, it is a matter of these works being the most significant works of Eliot.

The second point you over looked is that the critic arguing that, say, Cousin Nancy was the more significant,would have to prove it. This is a logical improbability, and would be quite a task.

The third point you overlook is that any critic is perfectly entitled to make such an assertion as that Cousin Nancy is Eliot's most significant and most creditable work of poetry. It's just that everybody else is free to disagree with him, since it's all a matter of perception anyway, not quite as is the case with biology.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

I think you're wilfully misreading me. I didn't mention Prufrock and the Waste Land because I assumed you had read them. Murder in the Cathedral, The Cocktail Party and Four Quartets are not at all obscure corners of Eliot's work, but number among his major achievements.

You're not reading the post properly.

Originally Posted by AnnyHallsal
The point you overlooked is the Eliot scholar could credibly argue that his most famous works were neither his best nor his most significant.

nobody claims that those works you mentioned earlier are Eliot's most famous works, as you said yourself unless one has read or sat through those works, it's hard to credit the critic with much authority. Therefore, it is a matter of these works being the most significant works of Eliot.

Murder in the Cathedral, The Cocktail Party and Four Quartets are not 'famous' works of Eliot, they're significant works of Eliot, and therefore more relevant.

I presume The Naming Of Cats is one of his most famous, but famous is quite a different thing to most significant, and not many people would say it was among his most significant.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Yeats's most famous poem is the Lake Isle of Innisfree, his most formally significant is widely considered to be the Tower. Does that mean only those who have read the Tower are entitled to express an opinion on Yeats? No.

Of course not.

Equally, who said nobody was entitled to express an opinion on Dawkins?

You're setting up a blatant straw man argument.

Anybody can express an opinion. But some opinions are less convincing than others. Any claims that Dawkins's latter publications are blistering attacks on theology, or elevate educated readers to a thrilling intellectual plateau are likely to be met with as much bafflement as suggesting that The Salley Gardens was the height of Yeats's poetic attainment.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Fine. But your last paragraph has acted as a strawman for the last few pages of this thread. No one here has made any such grandiose claim.

Again, you're wrong.

Read the thread. I did not suggest that posters on here were making such spurious claims.

I began posting in this thread by referring to 'New Atheists'' and what is regularly referenced in the media and online as their oftentimes juvenile failure to deal comprehensively with the matter of religious belief, preferring the weaker rhetoric of Dawkins' books as a shortcut to intellectual rigour in both describing and dismissing the logical basis for faith. I said that they wear their atheism on their sleeve and they hold up Dawkins as some hero/ genius/ luminary of atheism.

Then a number of strangers scrambled from nowhere to say "I'm not saying he's a genius!!!!11!".

Who said they were?

It all seemed a bit overly defensive.

They're wrong in other ways, as was established, but I didn't say anybody here claimed Dawkins to be a genius.

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

And I took issue with your more glib assertions, such as attributing Dawkins's prominence to the efforts of a publicist.

Well I must admit I find that one hard to understand.

About two chapters of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy would explain the genesis of - and even debunk - a lot of Christian theology far more efficiently & satisfactorily than Dawkins has ever done in his writing on atheism.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I said that, but that is not what you claimed I said.

I have nothing to claim.

That you even said this is startling

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In fact the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers.

You haven't read Dawkins most important book by his own account, the book which popularised the most significant theory that he gave to evolutionary biology.

Were you waiting for someone else to tell you whether to approve of it or not?

I think you might be happier with people who are more like minded

http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Your continual ignoring of things I said

This is the thing, I'm not, I'm merely pointing them out to you. In fact your denial is only very recent. The last time I put it to you the followinh exchange happened

Cú Giobach wrote: »

In fact the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers.

later10 wrote: »

I pity anybody who takes this view.

You allow others to dictate to you the extent of another man's genius?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

No you don't, because you do exactly the same thing.

Hardly a rebuttal or a denial is it?

You just accuse others of doing the same thing. You even repeat it thereafter:

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I said, the best way to find out about someone's expertise in their field, is to find out their qualifications and the opinions of their peers.

So I'm sorry but it's a bit late for back-pedaling now.

Thankfully most educated people do not take this lazy shortcut to appreciation of great minds. This sort of methodology never leads to true appreciation, just mute nodding along while not bothering to see what everybody else can see.