Church of England defends prayer tweet for Richard Dawkins after stroke. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=strayebyrd;49742603]To play Devil's avocado, This might more be a problem with trying to discuss complex moral discussions on the platform of twitter, rather than in a lecture hall.[/QUOTE] In my experience it is in no way limited to twitter. People are perfectly fine with taking others' statements out of context regardless of what platform they're speaking on. I mean, Dawkins statement wasn't even taken out of context. It was just altered and deliberately misinterpreted.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;49742566]The people who post memes of his quotes might be, but Dawkins himself is a reasonable fellow. He's pragmatic and can come off as harsh for sure, but speaking as a biologist it makes sense. [/QUOTE] I think the problem people have with Dawkins is that he so often speaks as though he's an authority on things that aren't biology as well.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49742648]I think the problem people have with Dawkins is that he so often speaks as though he's an authority on things that aren't biology as well.[/QUOTE] What exactly does it mean to "speak as though he's an authority"?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49742642]In my experience it is in no way limited to twitter. People are perfectly fine with taking others' statements out of context regardless of what platform they're speaking on. I mean, Dawkins statement wasn't even taken out of context. It was just altered and deliberately misinterpreted.[/QUOTE] What I'm trying to say is that academic discussions should be left to academic arenas. Academic discourse has always had a very specific language that doesn't apply outside. Discussions on such subjects have happened in the lecture theatre for decades without being blown out of proportion, because no one ever heard about it

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49742679]What exactly does it mean to "speak as though he's an authority"?[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what's ambiguous about that statement.

[QUOTE=strayebyrd;49742693]What I'm trying to say is that academic discussions should be left to academic arenas. Academic discourse has always had a very specific language that doesn't apply outside. Discussions on such subjects have happened in the lecture theatre for decades without being blown out of proportion, because no one ever heard about it[/QUOTE] I think it would be to the benefit of all mankind for people to hear about these ideas. I don't think shutting out the plebes because they just can't understand complex issues is going to create a more informed and educated public. [editline]15th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;49742715]I'm not sure what's ambiguous about that statement.[/QUOTE] I'd like an example of what you mean. Did he go on twitter and say "as an expert on cooking, I think Gordon Ramsey is a fraud" or something? What exactly did he say that constitutes speaking as an authority on topics outside his expertise?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49742731]I think it would be to the benefit of all mankind for people to hear about these ideas. I don't think shutting out the plebes because they just can't understand complex issues is going to create a more informed and educated public.[/QUOTE] then you need to teach academic discourse in schools. It's not that they can't understand the issue, it's that it's being discussed in a way that they've never been taught. You can't just sit someone who's never been to university down with an academic journal and expect them to pick everything up in it

[QUOTE=strayebyrd;49742752]then you need to teach academic discourse in schools. It's not that they can't understand the issue, it's that it's being discussed in a way that they've never been taught. You can't just sit someone who's never been to university down with an academic journal and expect them to pick everything up in it[/QUOTE] They aren't speaking in Klingon. It doesn't take a university education to understand logical arguments. The problem isn't that what they're saying is beyond people's ability to understand, it's that sensationalist reactionaries exploit the fact that they're discussing complex and controversial topics to whip people into a frenzy. The problem is that people assume what they're told is true without investigating themselves. That's something that people need to learn not to do, and they aren't going to learn not to do it if every person who wants to discuss complex and controversial topics and opinions locks themselves inside an ivy league school lecture hall.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49742648]I think the problem people have with Dawkins is that he so often speaks as though he's an authority on things that aren't biology as well.[/QUOTE] That's not a bad analysis - he speaks outside of his area of expertise, but some of the ideas which are most prominent in ecology and biology are applicable outside of the field. Things such as economics and sociology are not commonly thought of as being related to biology, but there are strong parallels. e.g. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_network"]Ecology (resource scarcity),[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_structures_in_nature"]emergence (higher order structures forming from less complex objects interacting),[/URL] and Dawkin's own [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics"]memetics[/URL]. Even when speaking outside of his area of expertise, Dawkins frames the discussion in a biological context. People are thought of as being animals, and our behaviors (as emergent phenomena) are thought of as being microcosms of evolution.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49742788]They aren't speaking in Klingon. It doesn't take a university education to understand logical arguments. The problem isn't that what they're saying is beyond people's ability to understand, it's that sensationalist reactionaries exploit the fact that they're discussing complex and controversial topics to whip people into a frenzy. The problem is that people assume what they're told is true without investigating themselves. That's something that people need to learn not to do, and they aren't going to learn not to do it if every person who wants to discuss complex and controversial topics and opinions locks themselves inside an ivy league school lecture hall.[/QUOTE] it's not a different language literally, but you can't ignore the fact that academic writing is written in a very specific way, with very lengthy paragraphs with specific terminology, and a lot of repetition. And they're written that way specifically to avoid being misquoted and misunderstood. If you started making kids read academic journals in high school then it would be a lot easier for people to go and read academic journals when they read a sensationalist headline, and disprove it for themselves.

[QUOTE=strayebyrd;49742846]it's not a different language literally, but you can't ignore the fact that academic writing is written in a very specific way, with very lengthy paragraphs with specific terminology, and a lot of repetition. And they're written that way specifically to avoid being misquoted and misunderstood. If you started making kids read academic journals in high school then it would be a lot easier for people to go and read academic journals when they read a sensationalist headline, and disprove it for themselves.[/QUOTE] This is precisely why more academics need to speak publicly. The more people read academic arguments, the easier it becomes for them to read them in the future. This is how you ultimately solve the problem. However, that goal will be severely delayed if people continue to give credence to the sensationalism of pundits trying to stir up people's emotions.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;49742842]That's not a bad analysis - he speaks outside of his area of expertise, but some of the ideas which are most prominent in ecology and biology are applicable outside of the field. Things such as economics and sociology are not commonly thought of as being related to biology, but there are strong parallels. e.g. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_network"]Ecology (resource scarcity),[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_structures_in_nature"]emergence (higher order structures forming from less complex objects interacting),[/URL] and Dawkin's own [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics"]memetics[/URL]. Even when speaking outside of his area of expertise, Dawkins frames the discussion in a biological context. People are thought of as being animals, and our behaviors (as emergent phenomena) are thought of as being microcosms of evolution.[/QUOTE] He tries to frame everything in a biological context but his inability to conduct himself like an adult on the internet leads him down these weird twitter rabbit holes where he ranks types of rape by severity and tells people that they need to "learn how to think" like a smug child. This example from earlier [t]http://i.imgur.com/6BLufBi.png[/t] is not how a world-renowned biologist talks, and it's no surprise that a lot of people get annoyed with him when he does.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49742945]He tries to frame everything in a biological context but his inability to conduct himself like an adult on the internet leads him down these weird twitter rabbit holes where he ranks types of rape by severity and tells people that they need to "learn how to think" like a smug child. This example from earlier [t]http://i.imgur.com/6BLufBi.png[/t] is not how a world-renowned biologist talks, and it's no surprise that a lot of people get annoyed with him when he does.[/QUOTE] What, should he have not said something that's appears to be true because it's offensive? Is he an asshole for talking on his own platform about something you are well within your rights to ignore, and for insulting people who are evidently lying about what he's saying?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49742945]He tries to frame everything in a biological context but his inability to conduct himself like an adult on the internet leads him down these weird twitter rabbit holes where he ranks types of rape by severity and tells people that they need to "learn how to think" like a smug child. This example from earlier [t]http://i.imgur.com/6BLufBi.png[/t] is not how a world-renowned biologist talks, and it's no surprise that a lot of people get annoyed with him when he does.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but if you think either of those statements are endorsements of either thing, then yes, you should learn how to read at the very least because nothing about those statements would lead a reasonable person to believe he's endorsing rape. Should we acknowledge those two things are different or should we acknowledge they're the same? No one's going to be happy either way.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49742988]What, should he have not said something that's appears to be true because it's offensive? Is he an asshole for talking on his own platform about something you are well within your rights to ignore, and for insulting people who are evidently lying about what he's saying?[/QUOTE] Yeah I'd argue that those tweets make him an asshole. Lots of people would. He's free to make them just as I'm free to think he's an asshole.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49742891]This is precisely why more academics need to speak publicly. The more people read academic arguments, the easier it becomes for them to read them in the future. This is how you ultimately solve the problem. However, that goal will be severely delayed if people continue to give credence to the sensationalism of pundits trying to stir up people's emotions.[/QUOTE] This is the problem, that every discussion, no matter how dense or complex, at a base level comes down to language For instance, one of my big areas in university was post-modernism. Post-modernist philosophers write in a way that's intentionally confusing to satirise this specific problem. at the end of the day, all discourse is won or lost based on language. Take our discourse happening right now, both of us have the same argument really - that we'd like an educated populace who understand academia and see nuance in discussion. But we almost look as if we're on different sides of an argument. Right now our discussion is essentially semantics because we're wording ourselves differently. Academia has been plagued for decades by this issue. Non-academics feel like they are being kept on the outside because journals are written in such a dense, confusing way. This is the reason people like Dawkins and Hitchens got so popular, because they wrote with far more populist language. However, this also draws issues, because without the density, you lose the nuance that you get when you spend 100,000 words writing on one subject. Like I say, I feel the best solution would be to educate people in academia early on while they're still in school, and hopefully the idea of reading a 200 page journal on morality won't be so daunting. But it'll be hard to get kids interested in stuff like this without figures like Dawkins or Hitchens, so it's a real chicken and egg scenario

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49743013]Yeah I'd argue that those tweets make him an asshole. Lots of people would. He's free to make them just as I'm free to think he's an asshole.[/QUOTE] It seems to me like the only crime he's committed is commenting on a subject you think he should be arbitrarily restricted from discussing. [editline]15th February 2016[/editline] [url]https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/[/url] this is probably worth listening to

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49743025]It seems to me like the only crime he's committed is commenting on a subject you think he should be arbitrarily restricted from discussing. [editline]15th February 2016[/editline] [URL]https://richarddawkins.net/2016/02/an-update-on-richards-condition-in-his-own-words/[/URL] this is probably worth listening to[/QUOTE] "... Controversy... not getting involved in controversy is one of the things I'm not particularly talented at. ..." Poor guy. I can't imagine what it would be like to go through something like that.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49742945]He tries to frame everything in a biological context but his inability to conduct himself like an adult on the internet leads him down these weird twitter rabbit holes where he ranks types of rape by severity and tells people that they need to "learn how to think" like a smug child. This example from earlier [t]http://i.imgur.com/6BLufBi.png[/t] is not how a world-renowned biologist talks, and it's no surprise that a lot of people get annoyed with him when he does.[/QUOTE] I don't see any problems with what he's saying. What's wrong with hypothetically comparing one thing with another? I think the reactions to this are unwarranted, and I like his more objective way of looking at things.

I'm also not seeing the controversy behind those tweets. And yes, if you think saying "X is bad but Y is worse" is endorsing X than you should stop using Twitter for a second and work it out in your head and realize that doesn't follow.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49744533]I'm also not seeing the controversy behind those tweets. And yes, if you think saying "X is bad but Y is worse" is endorsing X than you should stop using Twitter for a second and work it out in your head and realize that doesn't follow.[/QUOTE] I think the outrage stems not from the fact that he's [I]endorsing[/I] X, but diminishing the severity of it like, it shouldnt be a pissing match of which rape is worse, its all rape, its all terrible. what purpose does saying "well your rape wasnt as bad as [I]this[/I] rape" have?

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49744551]what purpose does saying "well your rape wasnt as bad as [I]this[/I] rape" have?[/QUOTE] Does all moral discourse have to have a "purpose" for it be valid?

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49744551]I think the outrage stems not from the fact that he's [I]endorsing[/I] X, but diminishing the severity of it like, it shouldnt be a pissing match of which rape is worse, its all rape, its all terrible. what purpose does saying "well your rape wasnt as bad as [I]this[/I] rape" have?[/QUOTE] Some crimes aren't as severe as other crimes. That doesn't make crimes not severe. If you're so terrified of people thinking lightly of rape that you are made uncomfortable by people stating entirely innocuous and completely self evident truths, then maybe you're the one with the problem. I cannot fathom where this paranoid fantasy that he was in any way trying to diminish the importance of rape comes from.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;49744575]Does all moral discourse have to have a "purpose" for it be valid?[/QUOTE] An aggressive twitter post is not a discourse. I'm sure people wouldn't have a problem with if it were in the context of a reasonable discussion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49744600]An aggressive twitter post is not a discourse. I'm sure people wouldn't have a problem with if it were in the context of a reasonable discussion.[/QUOTE] It's important to keep in mind that those tweets are in response to people twisting his words. He didn't just post that out of nowhere to piss people off.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49744600]An aggressive twitter post is not a discourse.[/QUOTE] Under what authority? Last time I checked a platform that allows you to communicate, does indeed facilitate discourse.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;49742945]He tries to frame everything in a biological context but his inability to conduct himself like an adult on the internet leads him down these weird twitter rabbit holes where he ranks types of rape by severity and tells people that they need to "learn how to think" like a smug child. This example from earlier [t]http://i.imgur.com/6BLufBi.png[/t] is not how a world-renowned biologist talks, and it's no surprise that a lot of people get annoyed with him when he does.[/QUOTE] You're ridiculous. Move the exact same analysis from pedophilia or rape (mostly just rape) and nobody would bat an eye. "A beating is bad. A beating that results in permanent disability is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of physical violence, go away and learn how to think." It's a triviality and a truism. The only reason it upsets you and anyone else is because rape is a hot button and makes you uncomfortable. In addition, what does his academic pedigree have to do with his tweets? Is he not allowed to make any statements that are unrelated to biology? Maybe you should go away and learn how to think.